Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    NAT and VPN - "masquerade" as another subnet via VPN?

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved NAT
    3 Posts 2 Posters 962 Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • K
      KimmoJ
      last edited by

      Sorry for the fuzzy terminology here, I'm a generalist rather than a network specialist -  but in a nutshell this is my issue:

      We have a VPN connection to a partner who serves a number of other clients via VPN's. The private LAN subnet we use (and that all our servers etc are on, making changes somewhat non-trivial) was already used by one of their other clients, so they assigned us a different private IP range for the purposes of this communication.

      This was set up on our existing old Cisco (by a consultant) so that it "translates" our existing private network (192.168.xx.0/24) to the one they assigned us (172.xxx.xxx.0/24) on the fly through the VPN connection, so we had to do nothing to our workstations or servers. So far so good.

      However, now I need to replicate this exact setup in the pfSense cluster we're setting up now. Where should I be looking, Outbound NAT?

      I'd really appreciate if someone could hit the high points of how to do this, and if I missed a resource that already describes what I'm looking for - my apologies, my google-fu failed if so.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • DerelictD
        Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
        last edited by

        The BINAT settings in the phase 2 entry of the IPsec to them.

        Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
        A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
        DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
        Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • K
          KimmoJ
          last edited by

          Ohh, of course, it would be in connection with the tunnel rather than NAT.  :-[ Thanks! Appreciate it. :D

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • First post
            Last post
          Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.